[#23457] [Bug #1471] "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 — John Carter <redmine@...>

Bug #1471: "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7

17 messages 2009/05/15

[#23483] [Bug #1478] Ruby archive — Oleg Puchinin <redmine@...>

Bug #1478: Ruby archive

29 messages 2009/05/16
[#29225] [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/04/02

Issue #1478 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#30345] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2010/05/21

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:13, Luis Lavena <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#30346] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

> Thanks for your comment.

[#30347] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

OK Hiroshi, I read some of the comments earlier in the thread that I

[#30355] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/05/21

On 5/20/10, Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@jmnet.us> wrote:

[#30364] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/05/22

Hi,

[#23505] [Bug #1494] tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows — Nicholas Manning <redmine@...>

Bug #1494: tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows

19 messages 2009/05/19

[#23572] [Bug #1525] Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #1525: Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork?

27 messages 2009/05/27

[#23595] Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>

The RUBY_PLATFORM constant is documented in the latest Pickaxe as "The

17 messages 2009/05/28
[#23596] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23602] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23608] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23609] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/29

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[ruby-core:23528] Re: [Bug #1487] String#each_char must return self

From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2009-05-23 15:47:19 UTC
List: ruby-core #23528
Excerpts from Yukihiro Matsumoto's message of Sat May 23 18:34:35 +0300 2009:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:23526] Re: [Bug #1487] String#each_char must return
> self"
>     on Sun, 24 May 2009 00:00:52 +0900, Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@kittensoft.org> writes:
> 
> |> I was hoping for a little bit of consistency as well.
> |
> |Also true for Array#each and so on. Whichever way it goes,
> |they should all be the same.
> |
> |Philosophically, returning self from a non-mutating iterator
> |is the most straightforward thing to do and makes it possible
> |to avoid the cost of the dup.
> 
> The string may be modified in the block, so that you cannot avoid the
> cost of the dup in this case.  OK, consistency is the reason?  What else?

I suppose this is true, although I am in the "enough String
to hang themselves" camp on the matter if someone thinks it
a good idea to muck with the object being iterated on (and
not using a mutating iterator.) The user can always do the
dup themselves. Might it warrant a mention in the method
documentation?


--
Magic is insufficiently advanced technology.


In This Thread